The standoff between Iran and the Western powers led by the United States has
created an entirely new "industry" in Washington, which consists of
"pundits" on Iran, its political system, and its nuclear program.
Some of them are not experts at all, as their "expertise" consists
entirely of hollow rhetoric, great exaggerations about the "threat"
posed by Iran, and half-truth, if not outright lies. One such pundit is Mark
Dubowitz, executive director of the neoconservative-aligned
Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD). Before he became an "expert"
on Iran, he was in the venture capital as well as software industries. How he
became an Iran expert overnight is not clear to this author. He is now presented
everywhere as an "expert" on sanctions against Iran, never mind that
one does not need "expertise" to advocate economic war on a nation.
He has taken some of the most hawkish
positions regarding Iran. In a June 2012 article
in Foreign Policy he advocated extremely harsh sanctions against
Iran, to which Eskandar Sadeghi-Boroujerdi and I responded,
revealing the depth of bankruptcy of his advocacy. Washington has been overcrowded
with such non-expert "experts" who want nothing but misery for the
Iranian people.

In the second group are people that do know nuclear technology, or nuclear
proliferation, or Iran, etc. Such pundits are divided into two groups. Some
have remained objective, and have not tried to take advantage of the hysteria
against Iran created by the War Party and the Israel Lobby to cash in. A good
example is Robert Kelley, a true nuclear expert and former chief inspector of
the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Iraq. He has consistently been
skeptical about all the grand claims and alarmist views about Iran’s nuclear
program (see here
and here,
for example). In the second group are those who have completely sold out to
the War Party. Their goal is not objective analysis of Iran’s nuclear program,
but appeasing the Party and the Washington hawks who would settle for nothing
less than complete destruction of Iran and its people.

Chief among such experts is David Albright, President of Institute for [bogus]
Science and International Security [for the American Empire]. He has played
a leading role in inflaming the hysteria about Iran by his grand exaggerations,
alarms over non-existing evidence, creating something out of nothing, and even
telling legal scholar Daniel Joyner how to interpret international agreements
regarding nuclear weapons. See here
to read about how Albright treated progressive journalist Sam Husseini and threatened
his organization with lawsuits, when Husseini asked Albright pointed questions.

I first wrote
about his work in March 2009, stating that if he continues on the path that
he had taken, he would become for the Iran Hawk what Judith Miller, the discredited
former New York Times reporter was for Iraq. The article led to him contacting
me, trying to scare me, then suggesting to have a radio debate together, then
backing out [all the e-mail exchanges are available], and eventually feeling
compelled to issue a defense of the ISIS work on Iran. I invite the readers
to read my previous article on Albright, and compare it with what he is currently
doing. Not only has he not become more balanced and objective, he has in fact
moved further to the right toward the positions that the War Party and Israel
Lobby have taken.

Just to give an example of Albright’s "scientific" modus operandi,
consider the following "scientific" report published by ISIS last
May, in which he and Paul Brannan wrote
(see here
for more of Albright-Brannan baseless speculations, presented as "scientific"
to the public):

ISIS has acquired commercial satellite imagery of the [non-nuclear,
conventional] Parchin site in Iran showing new activity that substantiates
the IAEA’s stated concern regarding recent “activity” at the site. The new activity
seen in the satellite image occurred outside a building suspected to contain
an explosive chamber used to carry out nuclear weapons related experiments.
The April 9, 2012 satellite image shows items lined up outside the building.
It is not clear what these items are. The image also shows what appears to be
a stream of water that emanates from or near the building…. The items visible
outside the building could be associated with the removal of equipment from
the building or with cleansing it. The stream of water that appears to emanate
from the building raises concerns that Iran may have been washing inside the
building, or perhaps washing the items outside the building. Satellite images
of the building from recent months do not show any similar activity at the site
— indicating that such activity is not a regular occurrence at this building.

Let us consider the "scientific" paragraph again. It is not clear
what the items outside the building are. They could be associated with
removal of equipment from the building. Iran may have been washing
inside the building, or perhaps outside. Satellite images do not
show any similar activity at the site. (How often are such images taken?)
Yet, all of these sheer speculations supposedly substantiate the IAEA’s
stated concern regarding recent “activity” at the site. In addition, ultra-sensitive
sensors that the IAEA inspectors have can detect one part in one million particles
in a sample, and so no amount of washing would be even nearly enough to hide
such particles. And even if this were possible, would the water not contaminate
the soil outside the building, so that the IAEA inspectors could, again, easily
detect the contaminants?

The "scientist" Albright has teamed up with Dubowitz, Michael
Yaffe (of National Defense University, and a former State Department Official),
Leonard Spector
(of the Monterey Institute of International Studies, and a former official at
the Department of Energy), and Orde
Kittrie (of Arizona State University and FDD, and a State Department official
in the Clinton and George W. Bush Administrations) to issue a 155-page report,
which is a political manifesto – better yet, the wish list of the War Party
and the Israel lobby – rather than a rational, objective, and scientific report,
entitled "U.S. Nonproliferation Strategy for the Changing Middle East,"
in which they supposedly prescribe nuclear nonproliferation strategies, given
Iran’s nuclear program, the civil in Syria, and the Arab Spring.

Kittrie has always been a strong proponent of tough economic sanctions against
Iran; see for example, here
and here. Yaffe
supported
invasion Iraq, has spoken about "Iranian hegemonic inclination," and
following Pentagon’s line uses the "Gulf," instead of the standard
Persian Gulf. Spector too has taken tough positions on Iran. He has
supported sanctions, use
of the threat for attacking Iran militarily, has urged "Washington
and its allies" to "use every tool in their tool kit" to stop
Iran’s "threat," and has even mentioned the possibility of inciting
revolution to topple the Iranian regime.

The report claims that Iran’s nuclear program, "Threatens international
peace and security, undermines the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty [NPT], and
threatens to spur proliferation elsewhere in the region." In what sense
a non-existent nuclear weapon program threatens peace and international security,
or undermines the NPT? Even if the program did exist – which it does not – the
only thing that it would threaten would be the U.S.-Israel hegemonic power in
the Middle East. Which countries will give nuclear technology to other nations
in that region, if they decide to compete with Iran? The U.S. and France will
be prime candidates.

The report claims, "Based on the current trajectory of Iran’s nuclear
program, we estimate that Iran could reach critical capability in mid-2014."
And, do not even think for a moment that this is a fantasy, because "Israeli
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has expressed concern that Iran may reach
critical capability by the summer of 2013;" oh, yes, that is all we needed
to be convinced. We should forget that Israel and the U.S. have been making
such dire predictions since
1984.

So, what should be done about this? "We recommend that the United States
and its allies impose maximal sanctions pressure on Iran," because, "There
is no way to know whether the Iranian regime will ever relent in its nuclear
ambitions. There is always the possibility that the regime will keep enriching
notwithstanding a looming, or even actual, sanctions-induced economic collapse,"
and all of this in the face of repeated statements by U.S.
and Israeli
leaders that the Iranian leaders are rational actors. But, rest assured that
they are all wrong. Because, typical of any report authored by Albright, he
and only he knows everything. Thus, "The Iranian leadership’s apocalyptic
messianism and exaltation of martyrdom may make it less possible to deter Iran’s
leadership from using nuclear weapons."

The report demands, "The United States should ramp up sanctions against
Iran so as to bring the date of maximal economic pressure nearer by significantly
increasing the sanctions’ impact on Iran’s international trade and investment,
Iranian government revenue, capital flows, inflation, foreign exchange rates,
and overall macroeconomic stability." In other words, create the conditions
that would force Iran to completely capitulate. But, do not even think for a
moment that this Gang of Five does not have any heart, because they recommend
that the U.S. should "continue working to ensure that implementation of
sanctions on Iran does not inadvertently block the provision to Iran of humanitarian
goods." There have been simply too many reports of severe shortage of critical
medicines in Iran due to the sanctions; see here,
here,
and here,
for example. But, they are all wrong! Typical of all reports authored by Albright,
he and only he is right, because, "Despite U.S. sanctions on Iran, U.S.
exports to Iran of various humanitarian goods rose considerably in 2012."
How did we all miss that?

Then, we reach the really "meaty" part of the report, where the Gang
proves their manhood. It demands, "Increase the credibility of the U.S.
military threat. The combination of economic sanctions and covert actions may
only succeed in preventing Iran from building nuclear weapons if paired with
a crystal clear message to Iran’s leaders that it is futile for them to continue
to seek such weapons because U.S. military action ultimately will prevent them
from succeeding," never mind that too many U.S. officials stated in 2012
that Iran is not trying to make nuclear weapons, and has not even made the decision
to do so. But, even this is not enough for the Gang. Iran must completely close
"the Fordow facility and any other deeply buried enrichment facility that
is either complete or under construction," because if the U.S. cannot destroy
the Fordow site on its own (which it cannot), Iran must do the job for the U.S.
and close the site. In addition, not only must the sovereign nation of Iran
be forced to sign, ratify and implement the Additional Protocol, it must in
fact agree [read capitulate] to "additional measures that reflect that
Iran has been found in noncompliance with its safeguards obligations."
Additional measures as called by whom or what? Even Netanyahu and the most virulent
proponents of American imperialism could not write this as "eloquently"
as the Gang of Five.

The Gang also draws remarkable lines in the sand for Iran: "The President
of the United States should explicitly declare that he will use military force
to destroy Iran’s nuclear program if Iran takes additional "decisive steps
toward producing a bomb." Possible triggers could include producing
weapon-grade uranium or separated plutonium, expelling IAEA inspectors, construction
of additional covert nuclear facilities, or undertaking significant additional
weaponization activities." Is there still any doubt about the strength
of the Gang’s manhood?

The Gang also acts as the speech writer for the President, telling him how
to threaten Iran: "The specific use by the president of an unambiguous
phrase such as ‘I will use military force if necessary to stop Iran from taking
the following steps toward acquiring a nuclear arsenal’ would contribute to
the credibility of the military option vis-a-vis Iran’s nuclear program."

Amazingly, the "scientist" and "non-partisan" Albright
agree to be the co-author of a report that also states, "Sabotage has been
used to slow the Iranian nuclear program, including through infiltration and
disruption of procurement networks and cyberattacks designed to inflict physical
damage to the program. Judicious use of this tool should be included in continued
U.S. efforts to constrain the Iranian nuclear program."

In other words, Albright, the man who always claims that he is opposed to war
with Iran prescribes state-sponsored terrorist operations inside Iran. He wants
a total economic war on Iran that will most likely kill tens of thousands of
Iranians, if not more. Recall that the U.S. sanctions imposed on Iraq in the
1990s killed at least 500,000 Iraqi babies and children.

The Gang then loses control of reality and gets lost in its own sense of grandiosity.
It begins to act as advocates for Saudi Arabia by demanding regime change –
in Syria, that is – in order to isolate Iran. "The collapse of the Assad
government and its replacement by a Sunni-dominated, Saudi and Qatari-backed
anti-Iranian government in Damascus would be a grievous strategic setback
for Tehran. As the United States attempts to pressure Iran to suspend its nuclear
program by means of intensified sanctions, covert operations, and the possibility
of future military intervention, Iran’s loss of its key ally could contribute
to a tipping point that forces it to accept restraints on its nuclear endeavors."

I had no idea that David Albright was an expert on everything that is happening
in the Middle East. But, then, again, the man knows everything, so why should
anyone be surprised?

Muhammad Sahimi is Professor of Chemical Engineering & Materials Science and the NIOC Chair in Petroleum Engineering at the University of Southern California. In addition to his regular contributions to antiwar.com, he is also co-founder and editor of the website Iran News & Middle East Reports.